12th International Congress on Mathematical Education

Program Name XX-YY-zz (pp. abcde-fghij)

8 July – 15 July, 2012, COEX, Seoul, Korea (This part is for LOC use only. Please do not
change this part.)

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION REFORM MOVEMENT IN

INDONESIA
Sutarto Hadi
Department of Mathematics Education
Lambung Mangkurat University, Indonesia
sutarto_hadi@yahoo.com
The reform of mathematics education in Indonesia started in mid-nineties. This was the second
attempt after the first movement to reform traditional mathematics to modern mathematics (1975 –
1990) was a complete failure. Several mathematicians and mathematics educators have dedicated
their expertise and experiences to rebuild mathematics education from the remnant of modern
mathematics. Their concerns were directed particularly to weakest group of students. After a long
consideration they came to decision to choose the theory of realistic mathematics education (RME)
as a basic concept for developing the local theory of mathematics teaching and learning. They had
the same view that RME could be a vehicle for improving mathematics teaching and learning and at
the same time as a tool for social transformation. They began with four teacher education institutes
and 12 schools as pilot. Now, RME has expanded to 23 universities that supervise over 300 schools
and thousands trained teachers. In this process of mathematics education reform the theory of RME
has been transformed to be PMRI, the Indonesian version of RME, and has been widely accepted as a
movement to reform mathematics education.

Key words: mathematics learning, RME, teacher education, PMRI

INTRODUCTION
Why do we need to give our children mathematics education? Is it to create a group of great
mathematicians? If it is, then we do not need to think of. Every year, a number of Indonesian
receives a PhD in mathematics from universities in country and overseas. Many Indonesian
participants in the Math Olympiad back home with gold medals. The concern is not only to a
small percentage of very smart students, but mostly also the majority. The gap between the
top and the weakest math students is very wide in Indonesia.
The aims of mathematics teaching in Indonesia are twofold. First, preparing students to be
able to face the changing dynamic global world through practical works based upon logical
reasoning, rational, critical, cautious, honest attitude, efficient and effective reasoning.
Second, preparing students to be able to use mathematics and mathematical reasoning in their
life and study (Hadi, 2002). These aims are not easy to realize. Most of students fear
mathematics and are math phobic. They tend to skip mathematics subject, and are happy
when mathematics teacher not able to come to the class. This implies to low quality of
mathematics education and students‟ achievement.

abcde
A group of mathematicians and mathematics educators were deeply worried to the situation.
They wanted to reform mathematics education in the country. Their concerns are based on
two reasons. Firstly, they realized that Indonesia needed a larger body of mathematically
literate citizens for country to develop and prosper. Secondly, they foresaw that mathematics
education that aimed at developing students‟ understanding and reasoning could help the
country to become a democratic society (Sembiring, Hoogland, & Dolk, 2010).
They researched mathematics education in different countries and choose to develop an
Indonesian form of realistic mathematics education (RME). They decided to create a local
version of RME. Why local? Because, past experiences (the implementation of modern
mathematics) show that it is not enough to import and disseminate what worked in another
country. Also, the group understood that a top-down reform had a low chance of success. In
their view, mathematics education reform needed to be bottom-up and start from specific
Indonesian situation. This led to the development of realistic mathematics education in
Indonesia or PMRI as it is called (Sembiring, Hoogland, & Dolk, 2010).
PMRI is defined as a domain-specific instruction theory, which offers guidelines for
instruction that aims at supporting students in constructing, or reinventing mathematics in
problem-centred interactive instruction. It refers to Freudenthal‟s concept of mathematics as
human activities. According to Freudenthal (1973) students should engage in mathematical
exploration and should be given the opportunity to reinvent mathematics using well-chosen
task, with the help of teacher. Students are not merely being taught mathematics as a
ready-made product. This point of departure, for some decades, formed the basis of design
research in the Netherlands and later on in Indonesia, which resulted in a range of local
instructional theories, and domain-specific instruction theory, known as the RME theory
(Gravemeijer, 2010; Widjaja, Dolk, & Fauzan, 2010).
The challenges faced by mathematics educators in Indonesia in transforming teacher-centred
to problem-centred interactive instruction are also in teacher preparation. The implementation
of RME in Indonesia was a complex innovation process because it relates to the changing of
teachers‟ beliefs, implementation of new methods, and use of new materials. Often time, the
introduction of a new approach faces challenges from teachers who are already stable with
their own approach. Therefore, from the beginning the PMRI team has been exercising an
effective strategy to make teachers gradually come to understand, and become skill-full and
competent in the use of new ways. The grounding principle in PMRI is the bottom-up
approach. This principle is accompanied by other principles of learning by modelling,
ownership at the right place, and co-creating (Sembiring & Hoogland, 2008). So, PMRI is not
only dealing with developing local instructional theory on mathematics teaching and
learning, but also developing effective professional development program.

REFORM STRATEGY
The preparation for PMRI implementation in Indonesia was started when in 1998 six very
talented young Masters were sent to the Netherlands to study for PhD in mathematics
education. Keuper-Makkink (2010) noted that preparing experts on RME was a first step for

Abcde+3 ICME-12, 2012

Hadi

PMRI movement. The next step was to gain support from larger audiences, especially policy
makers in the Ministry of National Education (MoNE). A proposal to start a Dutch project to
improve mathematics education found little support. The opposition was understandable
because too many projects in Indonesia, and a project means „earning money‟ and that is a
wrong approach for starting a movement. During their visit to the PhD-candidates in
Netherlands representative of Indonesian experts met Dutch mathematics education experts.
They come to conclusion that program must be authentically Indonesian, while Dutch experts
can assist with setting up workshops, which would contain mostly hands-on activities, not
top-down, but especially bottom-up activities, teachers would have much influence. Every
workshop would be preceded by trial in the schools: classroom research is obligatory.
(Keuper-Makkink, 2010).
The initiative was supported by the Directorate General of Higher Education, MoNE. Dutch
consultants, based at the Freudenthal Institute and APS (Dutch National Centre for School
Improvement) were involved in the development starting in 2001. Both Dutch institutes
initially invested support in the movement by offering conceptual RME knowledge,
knowledge on learning from pilot projects, and knowledge about strategies for dissemination
and implementation (Hoven, 2010).
In 2006, PMRI won a large grant from the Dutch Government. It offered the PMRI team the
opportunity to design a support project for expanding the PMRI movement. The basic
principles of the movement were identified, strengthened, and coined in the project plan
(Hoven, 2010). Those principles are (Sembiring & Hoogland, 2008; Sembiring, Hadi, &
Dolk, 2008):
 bottom up implementation;
 materials and framework based on and developed through classroom research;
 teachers being actively involved in design investigation and developing associated
materials;
 day-by-day implementation strategies that enable students to become more active
thinkers; and
 the development of contexts and teaching materials that are directly linked to school
environment and interest of students.
The bottom up strategy means that although the initiative was first taken by PMRI team
schools should play an active role. The change process would take place when each
individual within the organisation had the same view about the innovation and contribute
their part. Since the main concern was improving teaching and learning, innovation might be
initiated from classroom experiments. These have not only provided the base for the
development and refinement of PMRI theory but also informed those involved in the
development of workshop for teachers and learning materials (students‟ books and teachers‟
guides). In fact, teachers played very active role in PMRI workshops, and PMRI materials are
mostly written by teachers.

ICME-12, 2012 abcde+2

Teachers’ Role in PMRI Workshop
The nature of educational reform in large country, like Indonesia, is different from that of a
small scale project. In most cases, the activities that make small scale program successful are
not helpful when used on a larger scale. This may because of the complexity of problems that
are encountered in a large project, such as the number of schools and teachers and the area to
be covered. Large scale projects ask for different interventions than do small scale projects.
So, there is a need to develop a model that is appropriate for the large scale implementation of
PMRI.
The main concern when you plan for dissemination to the wider audiences is the limitation of
human resources. A strategy chosen to resolve this limitation was developing stratified
workshops (local and national levels) for teachers and mathematics educators (university
lecturers) while at the same time selecting talented teachers/lecturers to be partners in the
following supporting activities like workshop program and learning materials development.
There were several task forces for each intended goal, like task force for design research, task
force for learning materials development, and task force for quality assurance.
In every PMRI workshop, teachers played active role in planning, executing, and reflecting. It
had been shift from teachers as objects to teachers as subjects. Workshops were consisted of
theory and practices, doing mathematics, and modelling of lesson. At the end of each session
teachers were asked to reflect on what they know and perceive of what mathematics, how
students learn mathematics and how mathematics should be taught to students.

Facilitators visit
school before
workshop

Teachers try out Facilitators

lesson in own observe lesson
classrooms. On-site in real setting
support provided by
facilitators

Facilitators and Facilitators and

teachers bring teachers prepare
results of school PMRI lesson
visit to workshop

Figure 1. Full cycle of activity during PMRI workshop

Abcde+3 ICME-12, 2012

Hadi

Since its introduction there are thousands of primary schools teachers who are familiar with
PMRI. Most of them are able to shift from mechanistic way of teaching to problem based,
interactive instruction. The implementation have been supported by a series of workshop,
namely start-up workshop, follow-up workshop, and quality boost program (Hadi, Dolk, &
Zonneveld, 2010; Haan, Meiliasari, & Sari, 2010). However, it was realized that workshop
did not stand alone in the professional development program. One strategy only will not be
sufficient (Loucks-Horsley, et al, 2010). The PMRI workshops were put on teachers‟ own
setting. Classroom practices became a critical component in the program. Teachers should be
provided with opportunity to practice and observe how the idea looks like in a real situation in
the daily basis. There were pre-workshop and after-workshop activities. During
pre-workshop activity facilitators came to schools and observed lesson. This was followed
with reflection and ended with designing the new lesson that refinement of the lesson being
observed. During after-workshop activity facilitators and participants visited one of
participants‟ schools to observe lesson (Figure 1). The school visit was then conducted
regularly in the following months by facilitators of local PMRI centre. In this way teachers
received sustained time and support for reflection, collaboration, and continued learning.
(Hadi, Sumartono, Danaryanti, & Arifin, 2011).
A case study conducted by Haan, Meiliasari, and Sari (2010) found that PMRI workshops had
achieved their intended for hands on activity, doing mathematics, reflection after each
activity, and connection to daily practice. PMRI workshops fulfil most of the conditions for
effective workshops. Moreover, the workshops meet the expectations of the great majority of
the participants; during the workshops, there is a slight change in the attitude toward PMRI.
At the start of the workshop, most participants indicated they wanted to know more about
PMRI; at the end of the workshop, the larger part of the participants declared they wanted to
start implementing PMRI.
Developing PMRI Learning Materials
Another key factor in transforming from a pilot project to a large scale innovation is
availability of learning materials. In the first phase of the project it was clear that materials
had to be developed; teachers who were involved in PMRI workshop repeatedly asked for it.
Starting in 2001, a first version of materials was made by the four early adapting universities.
The first version of the learning materials was based on the national curriculum, the
knowledge of the learning process of the children at the time. The materials were tried out in
the 12 pilot schools (Amin, Julie, Munk, & Hoogland, 2010). This first version was used to
help teachers actualizing the idea of PMRI lesson in practice. After gain experiences from
practices, the PMRI team realized that further development of classroom learning materials
was an essential ingredient for institutionalizing of PMRI, both in teacher education institutes
as well as in the pilot schools that are associated with these teacher education institutes.
For the purpose of developing learning materials, a task force was created. The leaders of the
task force, supported by Dutch consultants, got assignment to develop a workshop for
prospective authors and form a team of authors capable to design a complete set of learning
materials for Grades 1 to 6 (Amin, Julie, Munk, & Hoogland, 2010). Members of the task
force are mathematics educators and teachers. Since, they developed something that was

ICME-12, 2012 abcde+2

different from the ordinary textbooks in the country they looked for inspiration from RME
materials in other countries, like for instance the Dutch textbook series Pluspunt and Wereld
in getallen or American textbook series like Mathematics in Context and Context for
Learning Mathematics. (Amin, Julie, Munk, & Hoogland, 2010).

Figure 2. Example of pages from the learning materials for Grade 2

Design of Standard for PMRI

Since its first initiation PMRI has passed several phases. The first was preparation (initiation)
phase (1998-2002), the second was pilot phase (2003-2005), the third was development
(implementation) phase, and the fourth was maturation (institutionalization) phase (2010 –
present). After 14 years of initiation, pilot and development, a vast body of knowledge has
been acquired on PMRI and on what is considered good PMRI education in Indonesia. The
current phase requires assurance for PMRI standards to anticipate the increasing number of
schools and universities wanting to join PMRI movement. Within the PMRI movement, there
has been a strong belief in a bottom-up approach, so new universities in new region could
adapt materials and ideas of PMRI to fit the local cultures, needs, and circumstances.
For the purpose of maintaining the quality and integrity of PMRI concept, a set of standards
has been developed. Those standards are standards for a PMRI teacher, lesson, learning
material, lecturer, workshop, and local centre (Hadi, Zulkardi, & Hoogland, 2010).

Abcde+3 ICME-12, 2012

Hadi

Standard for a PMRI Teacher

 A teacher has a repertoire of mathematics and PMRI didactics to develop a rich
learning environment.
 A teacher coaches students to think, discuss, and negotiate to stimulate initiative and
creativity.
 A teacher guides and encourages students to express ideas and find their own
strategies.
 A teacher manages class activities in such a way as to support students‟ cooperation
and discussion for the purpose of knowledge construction.
 The teacher, together with the students, summarizes mathematics facts, concepts,
principles through a process of reflection and confirmation.
Standards for a PMRI Lesson
 A PMRI lesson fulfils the accomplishment of competences as mentioned in the
curriculum.
 A PMRI lesson starts with a realistic problem to motivate and help students learn
mathematics.
 A PMRI lesson gives students opportunities to explore and discuss given problems so
that they can learn from each other and to promote mathematics concept construction.
 A PMRI lesson interconnects mathematics concepts to make meaningful lesson and
intertwine knowledge.
 A PMRI lesson ends with a confirmation and reflection to summarize learned
mathematical facts, concepts, and principles and is followed by exercises to strengthen
students‟ understanding.
Standards for PMRI Learning Material
 Learning materials are in line with the curriculum.
 Learning materials use realistic problems to motivate students and to help students s
 Learning materials intertwine mathematics concepts from different domain to give
opportunities for students to learn a meaningful and integrated mathematics.
 Learning materials contain enrichment materials to accommodate different ways and
levels of students‟ thinking.
 Learning materials are presented in such a way to encourage students to think
critically, creatively, and innovatively and to stimulate students‟ interaction and
cooperation.
Standards for a PMRI lecturer
 A lecturer uses PMRI principles during the courses to help student-teachers
experiences and understand PMRI.
 A lecture teaches in a way that supports interactivity in the classroom as a reflection of
the principles of PMRI teaching.
 A lecture observes PMRI classrooms to collect data and information that can be
integrated in the courses at the university and can be used as a basis for research to
develop PMRI.
 A lecture supports teachers who implement PMRI in School.

ICME-12, 2012 abcde+2

  A lecturer conducts research and make publications about PMRI.
Standards for a PMRI workshop
 Activities in a workshop are process-oriented which can support the participants to
understand PMRI ideas and are product-oriented aiming at providing materials that
can be used in school.
 A workshop facilitates participants to experience the PMRI characteristics themselves
in order to build their knowledge and skills.
 Contents of a workshop are in line with curriculum demand and the internal and
external condition of schools, and it envisions an ideal situation in order to enhance the
adaptability of PMRI in schools.
 During a workshop, participants reflect on the relation between the activities,
mathematical concepts, and PMRI theories.
 A workshop empowers and builds the confidence of the participants to sustain the
implementation of PMRI in schools.
Standards for a Local PMRI Centre (LPC)
 A LPC is an organization for lecturers, teachers, and student-teachers to do research
and develop PMRI.
 A LPC is an information and consultation centre about PMRI that provides
information, books, teaching materials, teaching media, agendas for professional
development, workshops and trainings, journals, magazines, and videos.
 A LPC is a training centre that offers attractive and well-organized training on PMRI
that focus on the process and content.
 A LPC is a communication centre that creates cooperation between partner schools,
teacher training colleges, other LPCs, and national and international centres.
 A LPC is an organization that is legalized by the rector of the university as a
semi-independent organization with an office and staff.
As an umbrella above these standards some more general principles and characteristics were
formulated.
PMRI Principles
 Guided reinvention and progressive mathematization
 Didactical phenomenology
PMRI Characteristics
 Use of contexts for phenomenologist exploration
 Use of models for mathematical concept construction
 Use of students‟ creations and contributions
 Student activity and interactivity in the learning process
 Intertwining mathematics concepts, aspects, and units
 Use of typical characteristics of Indonesian nature and cultures

Abcde+3 ICME-12, 2012

Hadi

EXAMPLE FROM PRACTICE

Thousands primary school teachers from at least 23 cities in Indonesia use PMRI in their
mathematics lesson. In the following two examples are given. The first example is taken from
the mathematics lesson at Grade 3 (8 years old) of Mrs Dewi Mustikawati from Al Hikmah
Primary School in Surabaya. Her lesson was about fraction.
A day before the lesson Mrs Dewi announced to her students about the learning materials that
students need to bring for the lesson.
Mrs Dewi: "Students, tomorrow we are going to have lunch together. You are going to be
divided into groups and each group bring their own bread, knifes, and jam”
Students imagined how cheerful the lesson would be.
A student: “I don‟t like jam, Mom. May I bring such butter or sugar?”
Mrs Dewi: “That‟s alright you may also bring cheese or whatever you like.”
On the day of the lesson Mrs Dewi divided her students into 5 groups. She arranged the
activities for each group as following:
Activity-1: Four loaves of bread were sliced differently.

1/2 1/4 1/6 1/8

Activity-2: Four loaves of sliced bread were spread with jam.

Figure 3. Students exhibit their works

ICME-12, 2012 abcde+2

Activity-3: Four loaves of bread were sliced spread with jam that show the same fractions

Figure 4. A student writes a fraction represents sliced bread spread with jam.
By using these simple activities Mrs Dewi gave students stimulant to comprehend fraction as
division (in activity-1), fraction as part of a whole (in activity-1 and activity-2), comparing
fractions with the same denominator (activity-2), putting fraction with the same denominator
in the right order (activity-2), and equivalent fraction and simplifying fractions (activity-3).

Figure 5. Students celebrate their lesson by eating their breads.

Abcde+3 ICME-12, 2012

Hadi

Mrs Dewi realized that she rarely found a situation where students were so exciting looking
forward to their mathematics lesson. PMRI made mathematics lesson so real and she saw her
students seem like playing but actually they learned mathematics even from the first minutes
of lesson. They did not only easily digest mathematical concepts, but also enhance their
understanding since they experienced with hands on activities. However, Mrs Dewi realized a
challenge she faced in PMRI lesson that was to reconcile the limitation of pacing time and the
content of the curriculum. Nevertheless, this challenge could be solved using a good design of
contextual problems that promote intertwining of learning strands. Having good contextual
problems teacher would be able to link among units in curriculum, and she did not need to
explain mathematics to students from page to page.
The second example is the PMRI lesson of Grade 4 (9 years old) on the topic of reflection
conducted by Mr Yusri Zani from Antasan Besar 7 Primary School in Banjarmasin. Mr Yusri
found that his students faced difficulty in comprehending the concept of symmetry. He knew
that students every day look at the mirror, but never realized its connection to mathematics.
He used this fact to design his lesson. He started with the following problems.
1. Which pictures below show the correct reflection?
a. b.

c. d.

2. The following picture is a shadow of a clock. What time is showed by the clock?

ICME-12, 2012 abcde+2

In the first problem, several students chose option “a” as the answer, while for the second
problem most students answer that the time is 01:30 PM. Having these facts Mr Yusri
designed his lesson. The materials needed for the lesson were a squared-shape mirror
(dimension of 10x10 cm2) and a worksheet (grid paper). Students were divided into several
groups. Each group get a 10x10 cm2 dimension mirror and a worksheet (Figure 6). Each
group did the following activity.

Figure 6. Student worksheet for lesson about reflection

1. Put the mirror on the thick line of the worksheet (grid paper).
2. Put a dice on the grid paper in front of the mirror, and look at the shadow in the mirror!
What about the shape and size of the shadow?
3. How far is the distance of dice to the mirror and how far is the distance of the shadow
to the mirror?
4. Look at the side of the dice in front of the mirror and the dice side in the shadow. What
about the direction of the dice through the shadow? Turn the dice that the opposite side
faces the mirror. What about the side of the dice shadow?
5. Do the same things for other dices. Is the result the same?
6. Write down your conclusion about the characteristics of reflection based on the
experiment you have done.

Abcde+3 ICME-12, 2012

Hadi

IN RETROSPECT
The overall goal of the PMRI movement is to improve the learning results in mathematics of
school age children in Indonesia. All children should acquire a reasonable amount of
knowledge and skills in mathematics during their elementary school years and first years of
secondary education. The learning of mathematics must be an inspiring and meaningful
activity for all children, must be taught at each child‟s own level, and must lead all children to
a practical knowledge base that will help them cope with quantitative situations in the world
around them. For some children, learning mathematics at a young age must also function as
on introduction to the more formal world of science and academic mathematics ahead of
them. (Sembiring, Hadi, Zulkardi, Hoogland, 2010, p. 189).
PMRI has been proven to be an approach that can accomplish this. It works. However, what
worked in the selected pilot schools is not automatically implementable on a large scale. The
implementation and institutionalization of PMRI all over Indonesia is still an enourmous
endeavour. It can only be accomplished with the hard and enduring efforts of many: teachers,
parents, principals, teacher educators, mathematicians, publishers, journalists, policy makers,
politicians, and many more. (Sembiring, Hadi, Zulkardi, Hoogland, 2010, p. 189).
For the coming years the following concrete issues will be addressed and work upon
(Sembiring, Hadi, Zulkardi, Hoogland, 2010, p. 189):
 Expanding a school based system of professional development of teachers on the
subject of PMRI. Mathematics and language are the key subjects for further
development.
 Increasing the capacity of universities to educate prospective teachers with a
conceptual and practical base of PMRI. Teachers are among the most crucial factors in
the improvement of mathematics education.
 Creating a research agenda on PMRI and conducting design research in the
classrooms, PMRI must become an instruction theory with a sound scientific basis in
order to make evidence informed choices.
 Creating assessment materials that reflect the concept of PMRI. These concepts are in
line with worldwide developments in mathematics education. See, for instance, PISA
(OECD, 2006).
 Working on the public relations of PMRI through bulletins, newspaper articles, TV,
etc.
 Creating a text book series of PMRI learning materials from Grades 1 to 6, as an
example of PMRI practice and as a starting point for further local adaptation and
development.
 Through the accomplishment of the above items, reaching an increasing number of
schools in an increasing number of regions and cities in Indonesia, by striking a
balance between bottom-up conceptual development and top-down facilitation and
support.

ICME-12, 2012 abcde+2

References
Amin, S.M., Julie, H., Munk, F., & Hoogland, K. (2010). The development of learning
materials for PMRI. In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in
Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: CDBeta Press.
Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How Emergent Models May Foster the Constitution of Formal
Mathematics. Mathematics Thinking & Learning, 1(2), 155-177.
Gravemeijer, K. (2010). Realistic mathematics education theory as a guideline for
problem-centered, interactive mathematics education. In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland & M.
Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.
Haan, D.d., Meiliasari, & Puspita Sari (2010). Local workshop in PMRI: learning from
experiences. In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in
Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.
Hadi, S. (2002). Effective Teacher Professional Development for Implementation of Realistic
Mathematics Education in Indonesia. University of Twente, Enschede.
Hadi, S., Dolk, M., & Zonneveld, E. (2010). The role of key teachers in PMRI dissemination.
In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in Indonesia.
Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.
Hadi, S., Zulkardi, & Hoogland, K. (2010). Quality assurance in PMRI – Design of standards
for PMRI. In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in
Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.
Hadi, S., Sumartono, Danaryanti, A., & Arifin, B., (2011). The impact of workshop to
teachers‟ competency in innovation implementation. Proc. of the International Congress
on School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) 2011, Limassol, Cyprus.
Hoven, G.H.v.d. (2010). PMRI: a rolling reform strategy in process. In R. Sembiring, K.
Hoogland & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS
International.
Keuper-Makkink, A. (2010). My involvement with PMRI. In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland &
M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.
Louck-Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love., & Hewson, P.W., (2010). Designing
Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin, SAGE.
OECD (2006). Assesing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for
PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Sembiring, R., Hoogland, K., & Dolk, M. (2010). Introduction to: A decade of PMRI in
Indonesia. In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in
Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.

Abcde+3 ICME-12, 2012

Hadi

Sembiring, R., Hadi, S., Zulkardi, Hoogland, K. (2010). The future of PMRI. In R.
Sembiring, K. Hoogland & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in Indonesia. Bandung,
Utrecht: APS International.
Sembiring, R., Hadi, S., & Dolk, M. (2008). Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesia
classroom through RME. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
40(6), 927-939.
Sembiring, R., & Hoogland, K. (2008). PMRI: A North-South partnership for improving
mathematics education in Indonesia. Paper presented at the ICSEI 2008: The 21 st annual
meeting of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement.
Widjaja, W., Dolk, M, & Fauzan, A. (2010). The role of context in teacher‟s questioning to
enhance students‟ thinking. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast
Asia, Vol. 33 No. 2, 168-186.

ICME-12, 2012 abcde+2